against undesirable aliens and their detention ordered pending deportation where this has proved impracticable. The power has been required to deal with criminal and vice rackets (triad societies, narcotics traffic).
of known criminals.
5.
China has always refused to accept the return
Mr. Royle may be intending to argue that Regulation 31 of the Principal Emergency Regulations is unnecessary in view of these
other powers.
But eight of the detainees could claim to be British
subjects and, if their claim is correct, can only be held under
Regulation 31; and Mr. Royle may also have overlooked the fact that the other powers are also emergency powers. There is force in the Hong Kong argument (Hong Kong Tel. No. 2248) that, with deportation an impracticable solution for dealing with aliens, it is logical to deal with communist activists, irrespective of nationality, under the same law and procedures. There is the added reason (which cannot be used publicly) that the form of investigation by an Advisory Tribunal prescribed by the Deportation and Detention Regulations prior to the issue of a Detention Order would not be appropriate where vital sources of intelligence have to be protected.
6.
In this same question, Mr. Royle asks the Secretary of State
to name the Committee of Review. This too is a point made in the Bar Association letter. We clearly must not reveal the undertaking given to unofficial members that their names would not be made public (Hong Kong Tel. No. 2248), but the reason behind their request for anonymity (namely, the threats made to public figures) can be given.
7.
The retention of emergency powers in Hong Kong is to be discussed with the Governor when he visits the Office on Friday, 13 December.
No comments yet.
Private notes are available after approval.